Project for the New American Century: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "temp" |
No edit summary |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Rebuilding America's Defenses''' | |||
*https://resistir.info/livros/rebuilding_americas_defenses.pdf | |||
*https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25398/Ferdigxmasteroppgave.pdf | |||
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America's_Defenses_2 | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[48] Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that the Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.[52] | |||
</blockquote> | |||
[[Category:Is-Controversial]] | |||
[[Category:Issue-Bush W Administration]] | |||
[[Category:Issue-War]] | |||
[[Category:Issue-Military Spending]] | |||
[[Category:Issue-Neoliberal Economics]] | |||
[[Category:Issue-New Pearl Harbor]] | |||
Latest revision as of 18:09, 25 October 2024
Rebuilding America's Defenses
- https://resistir.info/livros/rebuilding_americas_defenses.pdf
- https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/25398/Ferdigxmasteroppgave.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America's_Defenses_2
Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[48] Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that the Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans.[52]